What is the real value of architect certification?

A number of vendors are offering certification as an enterprise architect. None has, so far, at least in my mind risen to the top sufficiently for the certificate to be widely accepted throughout the industry and in government. While I agree with certification as a means to establish some qualifications, I really wonder if the certificate itself has any real bearing on the awarding of contracts to develop architectures of various types.

This is insane.
The only group i know that comes close to having enough well-defined "stuff"
that might let them certify an EA is the BCS.
At best others might certify a person as knowledgeable in the *theory* of a
particular framework or methodology.
With the current state of play, i would not even interview someone who
claimed EA certification on their CV (unless gained on the job in a company
i knew and could reference)
Would smell like rat from a mile away...

Nic:
Thanks for the reply. I certainly agree with the BCS, and its long history makes it the logical 'first choice'. My attitude has been that i would prefer to teach someone the skills rather than have them take the plethora of 1-3 week courses that about and only have to re-teach them the skills they really need.

In 1979, I got my Certified Data Processor certification. Within a
decade, that certification was passe and superseded by Microsoft
certifications. However, while the CDP exam was quite comprehensive, the
MS certs were both nit-picky and overly broad in many cases (IMHO). In
the intervening years, I have encountered many "Paper Tigers" who had a
significant number of MS certs but who were of marginal utility when I
came to actually performing the tasks. Admittedly, there were others who
had MS certs who actually knew their stuff and how to apply it in the real
world.

As a result of my experiences with the "Paper Tigers", though, I have
always been a little leery of certs and those who have them.

At least certification means you have studied (a part of) the subject and passed some exams.

I am a certified Carnegie Mellon Enterprise Architect, so I have attended 12 days of courses and passed 3 "exams". Am I now an EA? No not yet, but I have proven that I am interested and I want to learn, I am certainly not a "rat". Would I hire myself, solely based upon a sheet of paper? Certainly not... An EA is a senior profile that can look back on to some ICT experience and some business experience and who knows there is a lot to learn. I am going to certify in Togaf next. Why? Because it is a good motivator to master the subject, you have to pass the two exams! Am I a Togaf expert, no only experience can make you become an expert.

For me certification makes sense, as a motivator to master the subject. It is a primary way to select people for the job, I guess not, only proven experience should be...

Yours is the attitude that _all_ should have toward both certifications
and their meaning/use. However, the unfortunate fact is that far too many
think that a cert makes them an expert (not only within the IT ranks but
in too many management circles).

I perfectly agree with Bart's opinion. It speaks a lot about a person who has taken the course and put efforts for certification. Taking a EA course enables a structured thinking and framework approach to decompose the architecture problems and approaches. There might be more of theoritical flavour in absence of proper experience but it still contributes a lot on the table.
ï¿½
Thanks,
Ani

That seems to me to be the principal value--assuming that an architect, or would-be architect, goes through the certification process to understand what they have not yet learned--and need to--for success.

From my perspective, there are just too many 'certifications' these days to keep track of them and understand enough to determine if they are worthwhile or not. One thing I particularly like about the BCS is that is recognized throughout the world as a credential that clearly describes a level of capability achieved.

Correct, but do you not become an architect because at a certain point in your carreer you are faced with the opportunity. In the end, I think a good architect was once a good engineer: they both end up being "good" beacuse they tried to learn as much as possible, including the certification track were needed.

What does 'architect" mean?

People seem to have so many different meanings. For (humble) me an architect is a super engineer who starts thinking about the engineering process itself and how he or she can improve that. What I see most in the industry are "architects" that design stuff at a high abstraction layer, they do not yet see the importance of meta-modelling yet (but that is another story, I guess) , they simply remain "designers"... (ouch! I suppose I have hurt some feelings there, there is nothing bad in being a good designer, however!)

I make a distinction between EA training and certification. While any sort of EA training may be OK for a starter, the certification is not really relevant. One would only be certified for a particular method anyway. And there are many. In fact most architects build their own. People graduating from these courses were unable to define what EA is. Well that is the problem, isn't it, how do you certify someone for something you can't define?

What's the use of being certified in Zachman if it is only a mere taxonomy or ontology if you listen to a self assessment. That is, it is not really a framework. TOGAF is an (IT) development process framework if you really insist to call it a framework.

Anyway EA means more Business Architecture nowadays and certifications are still IT based, like the Carnegie Melon one.

Assuming that one is certified. Afterward, a real EA architect has to browse many books, articles, stay put in the EA community, publish eventually his own view, and do a lot of work, eventually as a consultant to learn that each assignment is different.

And after all, anyone going to a certification course gets certified if it pays for it.

I think we have actually achieved braod consensus on a thread for once!

EA is not all that different from a complex physical design project (hence
both using the designation "architect"
And i reckon it is currently generally in the same stage of maturity that
physical architecture was circe 8th to 17th century AD.

So basically, for every one Hagia Sophia out there, there were a heck of a
lot more cathedrals amd fortifications that didn't work, and are now ruins.

Oh wait:
There is only *one* Hagia Sophia, only *one* St Pauls... one eiffel tower...
hmm.

Do you get the point i am trying to make? For any particular context
(time/place/objective/etc) there is no one best EA
.
I think that it would not be beyond the wit of man to devise simple
apptitude tests, simulations, (much like a fighter pilot trains in a
simulator) and certifications of the basic building blocks of core skills
and apptitudes here. Note core only, because there will *always* be a facet
that is art, not science. EA deals with realms often that contain complex
and transfinite numbers - difficult to put into you SAS-driven balanced
scorecard analytics engine...

It would, however, entail significant expense, beyond the reach of orgs
outside gov/military usually.
And i would also assume, that any such org would keep them entirely
internal, and non-transferable, for many good reasons....

You make a great comment here on what the certification is worth. John Z is a good friend--we have known each other for years, and served in several boards together. But I keep getting these messavges from Z-International that i am 'half way to certification" and only need to buy a book to be certified on the Z Framework. That's bull!

I fell instead, an architect is a guy with enough expertise to link
hardware and software, in such way he can improve the business success in
the near future (fixing the actual mess) and in the long term, he could
see beyond the time horizon. For example people whom choose bizarre
decision when they switched from main frames to pc and network data
processing, they lead the technical change inside their organization.

I think that you will find that this translates to someone with Vision, which is an attribute (only) of an Architect. The ultimate goal of an Architect is, as you mention, 'to link hardware and software' but I do not agree that they lead the change within their respective organisation. They should certainly have input to direction but not necessarily lead as you state.

Someone that goes on a course and completes a few exams is not an Architect in reality, they have only gained a small amount of insight and knowledge into how to configure what is related to their course which they were just certification in.

Again, I refer to your statement earlier, 'to link hardware and software', therefore to truly be classed as an Architect for a project they must be certified and most importantly skilled and knowledgable in all facets of the hardware and software components of the project at hand to truly design a lasting solution for their respective business.

I like the term systems-thinking to explain the inerconnection of hardware and software, but i also think the architect needs to be able to understand the business process that the technology supports as well-- and more than just a peripheral knowledge. While much of the industry still thinks about architeting as an 'IT' function, it is not so anymore. The architect needs broader skills that enable pulling together disparate, but related views into a 'whole part' through architecture that gets the business operations people what they need, and facilitates the ability of the IT people to deliver desired capabilities.

Perhaps you have hit on a key point of the original discussion in your concept of an architect having vision. I agree with your view, but how would you evaluate the ability of someone coming in with a certification for their visioneering skills?

This is a tricky scenario, the only real way that I have found to do this is through evaluation at a second or third interview stage. Obviously in the CV review and first interview stages you 'weed out' the unsuitable, then you can use case studies for the second or third interview's. These are then be evaluated by a panel of in house experts from each of the different areas (ie. business functional area, platform area, storage area etc).

This seems rather excessive, but in reality you are looking to recruit someone of true knowledge who is going to be demanding a large package. This same person is also going to be responsible for designing your large scale solutions which are generally large costs to the business. Therefore you want the right solution first time that is fit for purpose.

Have several views developed for a problem that really didn't work well. Two are process views, three are systems views, one a data view, and one a capability view and I have, on occasion 'shared' them with someone I interviewed that looked promsing. A bit like homework on the interview. I tell him/her up front that we had problems (Have a requirements statement as well) and ask them for their thoughts. no requirement to respond immediately, but have found that the really sharp architects can look quickly as see how we went in the wrong direction.

The other things I look for in the interview are the ability to know the names and uses of the various views in the framework we are discussing; how they relate to each others, and what common set of views they normally use for starter sets. Too many that have gone through the certification process know the acronyms (i.e. OV-1, OV-5, etc. in DoDAF, for example) but can't really tell you what the actual name is or give you a brief description of what it is supposed to do.

Conversely, I also want to hear from them on their experiences. We suggest they bring sanitized examples of the views they have developed, and an 'elevator speech' on what they developed, and why. We want to know that they are actually able to function as an architect of some level or form. This helps decide what additional training we would have to provide to bring them to our (and the client's) standards.

John and Jason,
I have been watching this thread with quite a bit of interest.

I would like to move into doing more application, business and system architecture type of work; I also watched the architecture definition threads too.

Could you provide more information about what you look for in prospective candidates, suggestions where on what to read for more information and anything else you can think of that would be useful.

I'm not looking for a job from you, just want more information from people who know a lot more this than I do.

Brief background: been programming for more than 15 years mostly in procedural languages on various platforms. Recently taking graduate classes at a local university on object-oriented development and design including classes on Enterprise Architecture, Strategic Information Systems, Technical Communications, UML, and working with different development frameworks; I'm also studying for the SCJP exam and putting my education to use on some open source projects (nothing ready for delivery yet). I also have a background in emergency services, so I'm quite used to continuous learning.

I know I'm asking a lot, but I really am very interested in this subject.

Example 2: setting high sales goals will increases sales which will increase revenue which will increase profit.

Example 3: culling non-productive sales people will not increase or decrease sales which will not increase revenue but will increase profit.

Example 4: increase in interest rates for borrowed money and culling non-productive sales people will not increase or decrease sales which will not increase revenue but will lower increased profit when the company borrows money.

Yes and architect is something more than a bare engineer I like to relate and architect to the dream workers people who bring you the solution that fit your need,

We often went to buy clothes but it's different when you go to an atelier to ask some kind of suit that will fit you sharp, ladies know about that, MAC Y's dress has nothing to do with Versace, or when you ask some god combination of wine and meals, usually you ask sommelier's' advice.

I also agree with the need to make a good interview with people are you looking for the job, acronyms database it's not the guarantee of a good architect!!!!

I gave a presentation on GWT at the local Java Users Group meeting last night. We were hanging around talking after the meeting and someone brought up the subject of certification. Everyone laughed and told stories about someone they knew that had no working knowledge or competence on a subject but did have certification.

Permit me to be blunt but, IMHO, most corporate certification is just another form of marketing. In order to build trust with the industry, they are going to have to be willing to fail people who don't demonstrate competence and they are going to have to hire real teachers to be able to tell the difference.

'What is past is prolog' is the ships motto for the USS Plunger, a Thresher/Permit class submarine, and the third submarine to bear the name.

While not entirely germane to the discussion, it does lead one to look back on history to answer questions about the future; the certification question.

In the U.S., medicine and dentistry were practiced by doctors and other disciplines (blacksmiths and others.) The 'others' were eventually prohibited, by legislation, from their 'medical' practices by the successful lobbying of the American Medical Association. The lobbying also restricted the institutions that could produce a 'doctor.' The result was an immediate scarcity of licensed doctors which is still a problem today.

So, is the market demanding certification of an Enterprise Architect (EA)? Or, are EAs pushing for this to 'elevate' themselves? Or, are the certifying institutes trying to take advantage of 'scarcity' of EA resources and certifying institutions? Or, are certifying institutes trying to do the same as the AMA?

Will we have one industry standard for certifying EAs? Will we have to be certified?

Let's hope not.

BTW ? Security Monkey had a link to news about computer repair personnel in Texas needing a private investigator license. Seems that you have to investigate a problem before you can fix it and the PI organizations (and regulatory boards) say that investigations are in their domain. Go figure.

Two points:
1) I can understand why a forensic data analyst or skilled security / PC
technician might be asked to have a PI licence - but i admit, its going a
bit far - should i have one because i can use google properly?
2) Doctors only started needing licences and being regulated about 2500
years after hippocrates wrote his first tracts.
By my count, there might be a while to go before the same comes into play in
the IT/ICS field.

A very similar discussion has been going on in the Project Management world.
PMI Org. has now created additional "certifications" once they have their Project Management Professional or PMP.
New certifications such as Program or Portfolio or Risk Mgmt certs.
Some argue they are different areas, I tend to agree with similar statment posted hereï¿½that they are for the purpose of the main revenue stream for organization.
The actual restictions and experience required is being so lax and unvalidated that any Tom, Jane or Sanjay can get a cert and it is reducing the value which most companies are just beginning to even acknowledge let alone trust.

Following the ultimate put down of certification in practice by Glen's contribution, the string rather emphasises John Tieso's recommendation of the British Computer Society's certification. The BCS has in has no corporate membership. It is the professsional organisation of IT professionals. I daresay certification from the UK side of the pond will not be accepted in the USA generally, so there is a need perhaps for a similar professional certification in the US , at least for all the key building block elements.

This and related threads, with JT leading, describes almost white art elements being added to EA which cannot be taught. Indeed as EA pushes boundaries , it is becoming beyond definition.

However as EA has pushed on into some legitimate territory , it is moving to a position where it is implicitly saying to follow a career in EA there is a need for equivalent a Master of Business IT Arts* (maybe taken when more mature in years with some experience under the student's belt). And that would be a good thing as it would get away from the silly certification situation well described in the discussion and what must be a reality out there that some with a mere grounding in IT or from one area of IT start marketing themselves as EA and potential employers/ consultancy customers have difficulty sorting whet form chaff .

But the IT link must be vigorously stuck to in all respects . The tale of Icarus may come into play if some EAs think they, for example, they now cover financial analysis for example as one extreme post in the very recent past clearly illustrates.

To all:
A number of certifications in other fields of endeavor came about because of the need for standardization and quality in practice. That's primarily why medicine is no longer practiced by blacksmiths (Although I do know an MD who is also a blacksmith-took the course and is 'certified').

I'm not sure our area of practice has yet achieved that point in both aspects. We all want quality but are not yet sure what that term means. In fact, as is often pointed out in these pages, we can't even agree on the definition of an EA. Similarly, we are faced with a plethora of 'frameworks' that purport to show how to do architecting to some standards they have created. Again, while each has some genenes from early efforts, they have gone in differing directions and arrived at different points--because they relate in some cases to different kinds of architectures (e.g. TOGAF to business operations, MODAF, NAF to logistics and systems development, and other such as DoDAF that claim to apply to EA). The depth of our knowledge base may not have coalesced enough to 'get rid of the blacksmiths as architects' quite yet.

Graham makes a good point. Taking certification out of the hands of corporations may be a necessary step to building trust. I just noticed that there is another topic here on http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/thinking-out-loud/shoul d-universities-teach-enterprise-architecture-part- two-3230 which just might be relevant even if it is a bit dated.

Graham - I'm curious - which was the extreme post?
(re fin? I cannot spot it, and it speaks to an important foundation issue
here)

I think i am personally marginally competent to conduct at least first
triage financial analysis in various forms, although i would usually try
hand these over to more speciallist parties for QA and enrichment, once i
done a first or second pass.
I'd bet that a lot of people in the EA domain would be similarly competent.

The problem is, a heck of a lot *WOULD NOT*

While in discussion with a fellow i really like and respect the other day,
he sent me a private post asking "Explain exactly what you mean by
"top-line" and "bottom-line"

Now this is a chap i would happily reccomend, and describe as at the top of
his game.

So the field of human endeavour is vast, and EA by neccesity covers a lot of
it.
You are going to find most practitioners have gaps (for instance, on the
core infra and tech arch layers, i have been getting worse and worse, as i
dont keep up in detailed depth anymore with current stuff - i only have time
to monitor overall trends, and occasionally deep-dive into an area that
sparks my interest. Ask me whether i think its worth while virtualising on
the new SUN-ORA exadata platform for hot-swapping DR reasons, and i will put
that on the blackboard big-time..)

So whats core?
I don't really have a view any more, except there is a heck of a lot...

Well to focus/contribute to financial analysis, current and future relating to the IT, IT related and IT interfacing/interacting parts of the business, but not on financial analysis of the business as a whole or in parts of it wholly unconnected with the IT sphere ........ eg Eagle.

If your posting:
? Well to focus/contribute to financial analysis, current and future relating to the IT, IT related and IT interfacing/interacting parts of the business, but not on financial analysis of the business as a whole or in parts of it wholly unconnected with the IT sphere ........ eg Eagle. ?

is in response to Nic?s posting

?Graham - I'm curious - which was the extreme post? (re fin? I cannot spot it, and it speaks to an important foundation issue here)?

then dare I say that you have failed to provide the requested reference?

So, what are you really trying to say? Are you upset that I took the assertion that a discussion thread was ?Systems-thinking? and provided a more accurate example of systems-thinking using levers which had financial impacts?

Graham:
Your comments are certainly on the mark as far as gaining both the depth of experience, and the recognition needed for certifications in EA to have any merit at all. Unfortunately, many companies over here across the pond see sets of initials after one's name as a mark of credit for both the individual and the firm. Taking the tests to get the initials is emphasized for all-even the clericals have them these days.

I also agree with keeping linkages to the IT world, but not necessarily for the same reason as you. Systems engineering is a fairly precise process and body of knowledge that fits nicely into architectural view definition and practice. However, thaose principles and practices can apply to any opportunity that suggests or requires architecture development. it become a bit messy with EA--mostly because of the lack of consistent definition and the overbroad expectations that most definitions present.